2008/10/1 Gordon Joly <gordon.joly(a)pobox.com>:
> At 23:10 -0400 30/9/08, Nathan wrote:
>>To answer your question - probably not, no. If there is a two page article
>>about someone in the Times, and midway through page 2 it says that he
>>inherited his brown eyes from his father, that is an example of a fact found
>>in a reliable source that does not belong in the article. Salaciousness
>>isn't the standard for inclusion of a detail in an encyclopedic entry.
> Indeed,
It depends. For instance, details of someone's family are the sort of
thing readers would expect to see in bios and are generally included
and sourced. However, we've had cases where apparently-innocuous
details of family and where they live are in the article unsourced and
are regarded by the subject as sensitive private information, and
needed urgent removal.
The point of WP:BLP is (or should be) that our fundamental content
rules NPOV, NOR, V are all that's needed - but we need to apply them
very harshly and we really can't be eventualist about bad info in
living bios. This can result in somewhat detail-poor and washed-out
articles, but we're often the top Google hit for their name, and we
can wait for well-sourced info (which is where eventualism comes in).
e.g. in the rugby player case, the undue weight aspect of NPOV was
lacking in the old version, and this caused real-life problems for the
subject.
- d.
- d.
Christiano Moreschi wrote
> As if conclusive proof were needed, [[Holodomor]] comes under "Disaster management".
Conclusive? As in "we suspected that people generalize from one or even fewer examples, but now we have Conclusive Proof?"
Charles
-----------------------------------------
Email sent from www.virginmedia.com/email
Virus-checked using McAfee(R) Software and scanned for spam
Ditto and it is a book... you cannot have 2 completely different versions of
a book.
Plus, they have all the wiki articles under Category:Wikipedia where they
can edit under the supervision of the admins.
Fayssal F.
On Date: Sat, 4 Oct 2008 09:01:35 -0500 "Charlotte Webb" <
> charlottethewebb(a)gmail.com> wrote:
> Subject: Re: [WikiEN-l] How Wikipedia Works is online now
> To: "English Wikipedia" <wikien-l(a)lists.wikimedia.org>
> Message-ID:
> <4286fc440810040701s749f1fb7j6d6cb6989e35a379(a)mail.gmail.com>
> Content-Type: text/plain; charset=WINDOWS-1252
>
> On 10/2/08, Isabell Long <isabell121(a)gmail.com> wrote:
> > Oh brilliant, I can now read it without having to wait ages for it to
> > be ordered and delivered!
>
> Or more importantly, paying for it.
>
> On 10/2/08, Anthony <wikimail(a)inbox.org> wrote:
> > Is there a wiki version [of "How Wikipedia Works"]?
>
> If there was I'm sure most of the pages would be protected due to
> edit-warring, making "wiki" a very loose description of it.
>
> ?C.W.
> ------------------------------
>
On 4 Oct 2008 at 10:13, "Joe Szilagyi" <szilagyi(a)gmail.com> wrote:
> On a side note, a question for whoever first used "Meet the Metz" in regards
> to these news articles:
>
> Was that a reference to Meet the Mets, the fight song of my beloved and
> hapless New York Mets?
I believe I was the first to use that phrase, and yes, I was indeed
inspired by that tune. While I'm a Yankee fan (boo, hiss, you
probably went), I did on occasion watch telecasts of that other New
York team when I was a kid, and at one point at least they started
with that song, complete with lyrics. (The Yankees' theme song was
at that time, the late '70s, played only in instrumental form at the
start of telecasts, so I actually learned the Mets lyrics before I
knew those of the Yankees.)
--
== Dan ==
Dan's Mail Format Site: http://mailformat.dan.info/
Dan's Web Tips: http://webtips.dan.info/
Dan's Domain Site: http://domains.dan.info/
On 2 Oct 2008 at 14:46, "George Herbert" <george.herbert(a)gmail.com>
wrote:
> Even the most severe opponents did not seriously claim that the admins
> who "drove him away" (indef blocked him and his employees repeatedly)
> were involved in the deception or conflict of interest issue with
> Weiss.
Byrne himself has, as far as I am aware, never been blocked or
banned, but getting facts straight is apparently not a high priority
for those in the faction opposing them.
--
== Dan ==
Dan's Mail Format Site: http://mailformat.dan.info/
Dan's Web Tips: http://webtips.dan.info/
Dan's Domain Site: http://domains.dan.info/
On 2 Oct 2008 at 14:46, George Herbert wrote:
> On Thu, Oct 2, 2008 at 2:27 PM, <WJhonson(a)aol.com> wrote:
> > Doesn't it seem like there's a bit of a distinction between
> > "we didn't run his line" compared to
> >
> > "he was called a raving lunatic, a psychopathic hoodlum, and driven from WP
> > on a rail by a group we now know were equally partial and acting in bad faith"
> >
> > Just a small difference from what you stated, to what actually occurred.
>
> We now know no such thing, William. That's high slander and a gross
> misinterpretation of the actual facts on the ground.
You're calling that "high slander", while calling Byrne and Bagley
all sorts of bad names (which is continuing right here on this list
now) is perfectly fine?
--
== Dan ==
Dan's Mail Format Site: http://mailformat.dan.info/
Dan's Web Tips: http://webtips.dan.info/
Dan's Domain Site: http://domains.dan.info/
On 2 Oct 2008 at 10:13, Philip Sandifer <snowspinner(a)gmail.com>
wrote:
> On Oct 1, 2008, at 9:15 PM, WJhonson(a)aol.com wrote:
>
> > Now what? Evidently he isn't insane or a crack-pot too much anymore.
>
> Well, no. He's still hired people to work for his company with the
> sole purpose of having them publicly attack and slander his perceived
> enemies, including actively trying to infect their computers with
> viruses.
{{fact}}
--
== Dan ==
Dan's Mail Format Site: http://mailformat.dan.info/
Dan's Web Tips: http://webtips.dan.info/
Dan's Domain Site: http://domains.dan.info/
I never originally congratulated the HWW team when it was originally
published.
Charles Matthews gave me a sneak-preview of the book last month, and I
remembering making a jokey remark about how it was essentially "a paper
version of the Help namespace". While I wasn't being entirely serious, he
explained to me how it was much more than that: it was intended to be a
clear and much more accessible help guide to editing, and a comprehensive
guide on current policy and those "unwritten rules" which aren't
immediately obvious.
Phoebe, Charles, Ben, you've done a fantastic job. I'm still fascinated by
the GFDL licensing aspect! Was it your aim from the start to make a
GFDL-compatible version?
- H
Thu 02/10/2008 06:20, phoebe ayers [phoebe.wiki(a)gmail.com] wrote:
> Ah, you beat me to the punch on the announcement, as usual :)
>
> But yes: "How Wikipedia Works", now in stores *and* in handy online
> GFDL-approved format. Suggestions, corrections and comments here
> please: http://wiki.phoebeayers.info
>
> Thanks very much!
> Phoebe
"Kevin Wong" wrote
> Thanks, I look foward to modifying it. Again, it should really be turned
> into a Wiki by the WMF. That's a good idea. Having the Foundation make it as
> a project for users to modify. A sort of guide to editing.
Well, we contacted someone in the WMF a while ago, and didn't come away with much. In any case it seems unlikely that a wiki version of the book would ever have any "official" standing. Where it relies on actual Wikipedia pages, those pages are the real thing and the book can only be a sort of mirror (probably out of date, as mirrors tend to be).
Charles
-----------------------------------------
Email sent from www.virginmedia.com/email
Virus-checked using McAfee(R) Software and scanned for spam
"Newyorkbrad (Wikipedia)" write
>
> On the other hand, in the realm of BLP, this guideline becomes much more
> important to keeping content that could damage the well-being and reputation
> of a living person, while serving no sufficient encyclopedic purpose to
> warrant doing so, does not sully our project. Wikipedia does not exist to
> hurt people.
We could try to get untangled here:
- a necessary condition for material to appear in WP is not the same as a sufficient condition.
"Guidelines", to the extent that they contribute to content policy, are primarily not about "keeping". but excluding. That is what a guideline is - why have we forgotten? Outwith the guideline there is reason to ask why the content is there, in that form.
The reason that such confusion is possible goes back to wiki. Wikis are systems of permissions. The default is that people can post material to Wikipedia unless we have said otherwise. But BLP certainly is a big "otherwise". It says we need stringent application of content policy in the cases to which it applies. I certainly agree with that.
"Wikipedia does not exist to hurt people" - true, it exists to write the encyclopedia. There is no general principle of "do no harm" that we recognize, though.
Charles
-----------------------------------------
Email sent from www.virginmedia.com/email
Virus-checked using McAfee(R) Software and scanned for spam